* Ezekiel xviii. 31.

But natural men are said to be “dead in sin”—­and can the dead do aught which tends to their own resurrection?

The renewed are said to be “dead to sin”—­Can they do nothing which tends to wickedness?+ Metaphors must be understood with latitude.  We should involve ourselves in many absurdities, by always adhering to the literal sense of those used in scripture.  Were we to adhere in all cases to the literal sense, we should believe Christ to be a rock, a door, a vine, and receive the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation.

+Romans vi. 2. 11.

But is not “every imagination of the thoughts of sinners hearts,” said in scripture to “be only evil continually?”

Such is said to have been the state of antediluvian sinners, when the spirit had ceased to strive with them, agreeably to the threatening.*

* Genesis vi. 3.

It is a representation of the last grade of human depravity; but not applicable to every natural man.  Those who are unrenewed are not all equally depraved.  Some “are not far from the kingdom of God.”—­In some are things lovely in the Savior’s eyes.  “Then Jesus, beholding him, loved him.” +

+ Mark xii. 24. x. 21.

It is further asked, Whether every motion toward a return to God, is not the effect of divine influence?  And whether divine influence doth not necessarily produce effect?—­We answer,

To suppose man not capable of acting, but only of being acted on, or acted with, is to exculpate his enmity against God, and opposition to his law and gospel.  To suppose his enmity and opposition to be the effect of divine influence, is to excuse them.  Blame rests with the efficient.  The creature cannot be culpable, because he is what God made him; or while he remains what he was made of God.  To denominate either temper or conduct morally good or evil, consent is necessary, to suppose consent, in the creature, to be the effect of almighty power operating upon it, nullifies it to the creature, in a moral view.  The work of God cannot be the sin, or holiness, of the creature.

But depravity and wickedness are wrong, and criminal, apart from all consideration of their source—­they are so in themselves.

They cannot therefore be from God, but must have some other source.  The creature which vitiates another, is viewed as culpable, though it only tempts to wickedness, which is all a creature can do to vitiate another, and leaves the tempted ability to retain integrity; what must then be our views of a being whom we conceive to produce the same effect by an exertion of Almighty power?—­“God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man,” Is it then supposeable that he can produce it by direct efficiency?

But suppose him to produce it, Suppose it to derive immediately from him.  Is its nature altered?  Is it less criminal or odious?

God forbid that we should make the supposition!  It is a compound of absurdity and blasphemy!  As well may we suppose the sun to diffuse darkness!  They “trusted in lying words, who said of old, We are delivered to do abominations.”  We fear the Lord; “and will ascribe righteousness to our Maker.”